Legal Opinion

Siegal v. Strauss

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided November 19, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The provisions of section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (as amd. by Laws of 1927, chap. 553) have no application to an action at law by a physician to recover from the employer the agreed price for services rendered to an employee at the employer’s request. (See Frant v. Cobban & Son, Inc., 133 Misc. 433; affd., 226 App. Div. 796.)

There was no proof to establish an agreement by plaintiff to conform to the Workmen’s Compensation Law, nor was there any plea of election of remedies. It was error, therefore, to receive evidence concerning the requirements of the Workmen’s Compensation Law…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Frant v. Robert Cobban & Son, Inc.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1929
  2. Frant v. Robert Cobban & Son, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Weakley County Hospital v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Holmes v. Garfield Memorial Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API